Have I been cut off at home?

[RMCN172RG]

Home is KPHN St Clair County International.

The bird is 1980 172 RG II with the 1980 basic IFR radio set two rt-385 NAV/COM, Glideslope RCV and ADF. I fly with a Yoke mounted 196 VFR GPS.

These are the available procedures

IAPs - Instrument Approach ProceduresILS RWY 04 download [SIZE=-1](232KB)[/SIZE]VOR/DME OR GPS-A download [SIZE=-1](203KB)[/SIZE]VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 22 download [SIZE=-1](222KB)[/SIZE]NDB OR GPS RWY 04 download [SIZE=-1](219KB)[/SIZE]NOTE: Special Take-Off Minimums/Departure Procedures apply download [SIZE=-1](26KB)[/SIZE]

Here are the latest NOTAM's

PHN ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL
05/012 - NAV RWY 4 PHURN NDB/ILS LO OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 29 MAY 19:49 2009

9/1025 - FI/T ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL, PORT HURON, MI. ILS RWY 4, AMDT 3A... S-LOC 4: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, PHURN LOM OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 29 MAY 14:38 2009

8/6777 - FI/T ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL, PORT HURON, MI. ILS RWY 4, AMDT 3A... VOR/DME OR GPS A, AMDT 7A... CIRCLING MDA CATS A/B/C 1160/ HAA 510. VIS CAT B 1 1/4. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 05 SEP 13:28 2008

Since I do not have a DME receiver the two VOR/DME GPS approaches were already not legal although I have practiced them both using the VFR GPS for DME from ECK on the VOR/DME-A and for the GPS-RWY 22 waypoints.

With the LOM OTS the NDB approach is NA as well as the ILS/LOC RWY-4 without GPS.

So with my aircraft is it legal to use the ILS/LOC RWY 4 with Vectors to the FAF?

Will I soon be forced to replace the ADF with an IFR GPS as more NDB's are deactivated in order to still have a viable IFR aircraft?

 

[roncachamp]

Home is KPHN St Clair County International.

The bird is 1980 172 RG II with the 1980 basic IFR radio set two rt-385 NAV/COM, Glideslope RCV and ADF. I fly with a Yoke mounted 196 VFR GPS.

These are the available procedures

IAPs - Instrument Approach ProceduresILS RWY 04 download [SIZE=-1](232KB)[/SIZE]VOR/DME OR GPS-A download [SIZE=-1](203KB)[/SIZE]VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 22 download [SIZE=-1](222KB)[/SIZE]NDB OR GPS RWY 04 download [SIZE=-1](219KB)[/SIZE]NOTE: Special Take-Off Minimums/Departure Procedures apply download [SIZE=-1](26KB)[/SIZE]

Here are the latest NOTAM's

PHN ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL
05/012 - NAV RWY 4 PHURN NDB/ILS LO OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 29 MAY 19:49 2009

9/1025 - FI/T ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL, PORT HURON, MI. ILS RWY 4, AMDT 3A... S-LOC 4: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, PHURN LOM OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 29 MAY 14:38 2009

8/6777 - FI/T ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL, PORT HURON, MI. ILS RWY 4, AMDT 3A... VOR/DME OR GPS A, AMDT 7A... CIRCLING MDA CATS A/B/C 1160/ HAA 510. VIS CAT B 1 1/4. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 05 SEP 13:28 2008

Since I do not have a DME receiver the two VOR/DME GPS approaches were already not legal although I have practiced them both using the VFR GPS for DME from ECK on the VOR/DME-A and for the GPS-RWY 22 waypoints.

With the LOM OTS the NDB approach is NA as well as the ILS/LOC RWY-4 without GPS.

So with my aircraft is it legal to use the ILS/LOC RWY 4 with Vectors to the FAF?

Vectors to FAC. Yes, you can still do the ILS approach. Without the NDB you cannot identify the FAF on the localizer only approach.

Will I soon be forced to replace the ADF with an IFR GPS as more NDB's are deactivated in order to still have a viable IFR aircraft?

Probably.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Vectors to FAC. Yes, you can still do the ILS approach. Without the NDB you cannot identify the FAF on the localizer only approach.

Couldn't I use the marker beacon to ID pasaage of the OM on the LOC approach with vectors to FAC?

 

[roncachamp]

Couldn't I use the marker beacon to ID pasaage of the OM on the LOC approach with vectors to FAC?

Given that a marker beacon exists only to fix position along a track formed by another NAVAID you'd think so, but no, the fix error is too great for a FAF.

 

[EdFred]

Time to step into the 21st century with the panel.

 

[bbchien]

This is happening everywhere. Cour d'Alene lost its NDBs, and now the ILS is an ILS-DME approach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Will I soon be forced to replace the ADF with an IFR GPS as more NDB's are deactivated in order to still have a viable IFR aircraft?

Yeah, pretty much.

Vectors to FAC. Yes, you can still do the ILS approach. Without the NDB you cannot identify the FAF on the localizer only approach.

Do you have a reference for that? The plate also says "ADF REQUIRED" and it would seem that without the NDB being active, you couldn't satisfy that requirement. Even with vectors to final, how do you know you're picking up the right glideslope?

 

[roncachamp]

Do you have a reference for that? The plate also says "ADF REQUIRED" and it would seem that without the NDB being active, you couldn't satisfy that requirement. Even with vectors to final, how do you know you're picking up the right glideslope?

TERPS paras 286 and 287. To be satisfactory as a FAF, the fix displacement error should not exceed one mile. Normal powered marker beacons have a displacement error of two miles, overheading an NDB is considered error free. This affects only localizer minimums because the FAF on the ILS is determined by the GS intercept altitude.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

TERPS paras 286 and 287. To be satisfactory as a FAF, the fix displacement error should not exceed one mile. Normal powered marker beacons have a displacement error of two miles, overheading an NDB is considered error free. This affects only localizer minimums because the FAF on the ILS is determined by the GS intercept altitude.

Aha, thanks. Unfortunately, I can't read it right now 'cuz it seems the FAA is still suffering from DoS attacks.

 

[gismo]

Vectors to FAC. Yes, you can still do the ILS approach. Without the NDB you cannot identify the FAF on the localizer only approach.

While I agree that VTF for the ILS shouldn't require an ADF, I was under the impression that if the plate said "ADF Required" you cannot legally fly the approach under IFR without a working ADF or substitute (GPS) on board.

 

[roncachamp]

While I agree that VTF for the ILS shouldn't require an ADF, I was under the impression that if the plate said "ADF Required" you cannot legally fly the approach under IFR without a working ADF or substitute (GPS) on board.

You see these notes as regulatory in nature, I see them as reminders. They're just stating something that can otherwise be discerned by a thorough examination of the plate. If they're regulatory, how is the note "BACK COURSE" in the plan view of a LOC BC approach legally binding?

 

[RMCN172RG]

You see these notes as regulatory in nature, I see them as reminders. They're just stating something that can otherwise be discerned by a thorough examination of the plate. If they're regulatory, how is the note "BACK COURSE" in the plan view of a LOC BC approach legally binding?

It's identifying like RWY 4. VOR/DME addresses the required equipment / or legal substitute to fly it. Which of course is only the name.

ADF REQUIRED seems to be pretty specific as to intent.

In this case without ATC direction there is no prescribed method to navigate to and identfy the IAF/FAF.

I suspect this is as you stated that the error using radials from FNT and ECK is greater than the allowed limit, although they are used for the missed hold point?

 

[roncachamp]

I suspect this is as you stated that the error using radials from FNT and ECK is greater than the allowed limit, although they are used for the missed hold point?

Requirements for a holding fix are met at MARGN, which is on V450. The feeder route from MARGN connects the IAF to the enroute environment, but course guidance on the feeder is provided by the ADF. It'd be nice if a ECK radial was suitable to determine a FAF at PHURN, it could then also serve as a feeder route. But the fix displacement error is too big.

 

[Maverick]

It's identifying like RWY 4. VOR/DME addresses the required equipment / or legal substitute to fly it. Which of course is only the name.

ADF REQUIRED seems to be pretty specific as to intent.

In this case without ATC direction there is no prescribed method to navigate to and identfy the IAF/FAF.

I suspect this is as you stated that the error using radials from FNT and ECK is greater than the allowed limit, although they are used for the missed hold point?

Having an aircraft based at KPHN for 12 years I have flown the RWY4 ILS many times. I have flown the approach as a full procedure approach and with radar vectors from Selfridge approach. I found the ADF Required statement sort of confusing myself. I can understand it when doing a full procedure approach but I never found it necessary with radar vectors. This makes me wonder if the approach plates assume a full procedure approach.

It is also important to note that Selfridge approach is not manned 24/7 an from my experience Cleveland Center does not have good radar coverage at low altitudes in that area to give someone vectors to the approach.

I have also found the DME reception from FNT at 4,000 is sketchy to identify MARGN for the hold point at 48.5 DME. It was always necessary for me to use or at least double check with the 177 radial off of ECK to identify MARGN.

I haven't flown since I sold my airplane three years ago so I have no current experience. I did rather enjoy flying the full procedure approach. My airplane was equipped with an HSI and RMI which made that task pretty easy. I guess the RMI is destined to become a museum piece.

Jean

 

[gismo]

You see these notes as regulatory in nature, I see them as reminders. They're just stating something that can otherwise be discerned by a thorough examination of the plate. If they're regulatory, how is the note "BACK COURSE" in the plan view of a LOC BC approach legally binding?

Per section 5.5.4 of the AIM (Pilot's and Controller's responsibilities on an Instrument Approach) a pilot:

2.Follows the procedure as shown on the IAP, including all restrictive notations, such as: (list of things like "Radar Required")

I'm pretty sure that "ADF Required" would be considered a "restrictive notation". In addition, there's a whole section on the opportunities to substitute an IFR GPS for ADF when the ADF is required on an instrument approach. Seems rather unlikely to me that "ADF Required" is merely advisory, given all that.

 

[gprellwitz]

What I find telling, and supporting Steve's contention, is that the NOTAM specifies that it is the S-LOC 4 that is OTS. If the restriction ADF Required is intended to apply to the entire approach, why not mark the entire proc OTS? It would however, require either an IFR GPS or RADAR to identify the IAF.

 

[poadeleted20]

Couldn't I use the marker beacon to ID pasaage of the OM on the LOC approach with vectors to FAC?

The FDC NOTAM 9/1025 is regulatory, and it says "no."

 

[poadeleted20]

You see these notes as regulatory in nature, I see them as reminders.

I don't think Flight Standards sees it exactly that way, but since the only reason for that note on this approach is procedure entry, one can accept VTF in this case, and Grant's analysis is accurate. However, one cannot consider this approach as usable for the purposes of filed alternate requirements. If it's the only approach you can fly, you'll have to consider the airport as having no SIAP's and file an alternate regardless of weather, and if this is your planned alternate, you'll need "VFR from the MEA down" weather to file it.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm pretty sure that "ADF Required" would be considered a "restrictive notation". In addition, there's a whole section on the opportunities to substitute an IFR GPS for ADF when the ADF is required on an instrument approach. Seems rather unlikely to me that "ADF Required" is merely advisory, given all that.

Then why does the NOTAM apply only to the localizer approach?

 

[roncachamp]

I don't think Flight Standards sees it exactly that way, but since the only reason for that note on this approach is procedure entry, one can accept VTF in this case, and Grant's analysis is accurate.

ADF is needed to identify the localizer FAF.

If the note is regulatory it would be a violation to fly this approach without ADF even with VTF.

If these notes are regulatory, how is the note "BACK COURSE" in the plan view of a LOC BC approach legally binding?

 

[ScottM]

Will I soon be forced to replace the ADF with an IFR GPS as more NDB's are deactivated in order to still have a viable IFR aircraft?

While the other arguments rage on.....

I think the trend is that all IFR capable aircraft will have to have some sort of RNAV capability in the future. It certainly seems as if the FAA is updating the system to be more friendly and revolve around /G equiped aircraft.

It would seem prudent to start budgeting for a panel upgrade that includes an IFR capable GPS. I think most people these days that do a significant amount of IFR flying already have a GPS or a close to getting one. The days of /u and /a may be anachronistic in the coming years.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Thanks everyone for responding. Just like everything FAA this is clear as the Mississippi in New Orleans but the direction is clear. I noticed the NOTAM for higher circling minimums have been in effect for nine months so updating the charts does not seem to be a high priority.

After two days of flying this week, and visiting the avionics shop, to regain some proficiency while researching upgrade options I have a plan of direction and would appreciate comments and/or suggestions.

Problem #1 in the short term FBO will no longer be ordering or selling charts, AFD's etc.

Solution: I purchased Wingx for the Blackberry and now have a full AFD and current plates available on it. The AFD information is usable in the cockpit the plates could be referenced in a pinch but not really usable at all. So anticipated plates will be printed from my PC as part of the flight planning process.

The AOPA airport guide for blackberry (free) version of WingX has much less information on the airports, I was hoping to see some FBO data like edirectory. There are no IAP plates just the airport diagrams.

Current charts will require either a subsription from a large provider like Sport's or trip to PAC at PTK as needed. With the amount of flying I'm doing this year trips to PTK will be in order.

Problem # 2 loss of the ADF at PHN and legally flying IFR.

Solution: Since I will never file PHN as an alternate and if I need one it will be to FNT or PTK which have multiple legal options for my configuration and runway directions depending on the weather. Since I really don't plan to fly IFR regularly this is not a major concern.

Problem # 3 future panel configuration dollars spent versus aircraft value.

Here is the real crux where to go from here.

Step one will be to panel mount my 196, currently yoke mounted, moving the ADF in front of the right seat to make room.

Step two is to replace the 196 with a 396 or 496. Here I would like some opinions on how valuable is safe taxi and the AOPA airport guide. Does the airport guide have FBO information or is it more in line with the WingX AFD on the blackberry. I'm thinking 396 for weather and save the ~$1,000.

Step three is to replace one rt-385 with a GNS 430. At this point I can also remove the ADF since I have a legal alternate and possibly the glidescope receiver since one is built into the 430 saving a little weight overall. Will I be better off leaving the glidescope receiver for com 2 as a backup to the 430?

Step four which could precede step three. Purchase a usable EFB / Electronic plate viewer. This could be a Kindle DX or a reasonable small tablet with charts and plates available some flight planning software, AOPA directory etc. GPS would be nice but with one or two in the panel not necessary and I would not put weather on it or the 430 since I think one option in the plane will be fine for my purposes.

Step 5 although could be combined with step three in one purchase or separately. ADS-B compatibility possibly just a new transponder tied to the 430. Traffic alerts probably a ZAON tied to the 430.

Thoughts please?

Loan offers greatly appreciated.

 

[gprellwitz]

Ray,
As a non-aircraft owner, you need to take my comments with a grain of salt. But I'd skip steps 1 and 2 and go straight to 3. As you note, that's where you need to be in order to legally file /G and get the full benefit. I think that's a much bigger bang for the buck than a 396 or 496, though the weather on those is nothing to sneeze at!

As to the 496 it has basic FBO information (as in the names of the FBO's, hours, phone numbers and some of the amenities), but it doesn't include the comments you get online. It's basically what you see in the printed AOPA directory. It does refresh position 5x more often than the 396, which can be of significance if you're using it as an emergency 6-pack in the clag.

For the charts, if you use NACO be aware that you can order a subscription directly from them, and they've always arrived well before they take effect.

 

[bbchien]

Just go to problem 3, step 3. You'll get about half you money out eventually, and you'll enjoy much more flexibility in the remaining years of flying.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Step one will be to panel mount my 196, currently yoke mounted, moving the ADF in front of the right seat to make room.

IMHO, that sounds like significant expense for basically no return whatsoever. Leave the handhelds on the yoke.

Step two is to replace the 196 with a 396 or 496. Here I would like some opinions on how valuable is safe taxi and the AOPA airport guide. Does the airport guide have FBO information or is it more in line with the WingX AFD on the blackberry. I'm thinking 396 for weather and save the ~$1,000.

I actually think the 496 is worth the extra money. SafeTaxi is nice, and the AOPA directory helps to make the 496 into the ultimate diversion tool: Not only will it show you the weather to help you make the decision to divert in the first place, but it'll help you choose an airport that has a courtesy car and nearby restaurants if you're going to be waiting out the weather for a short time, or an airport that has a hotel nearby that will shuttle you to/from the airport if it's going to be an overnight wait for the weather to clear. The AOPA directory feature doesn't sound like much at first, but when I rented a 496 last summer it became one of the features I used most on the unit. Plus, the faster processing is very nice. Or maybe I'm just impatient.

Step three is to replace one rt-385 with a GNS 430. At this point I can also remove the ADF since I have a legal alternate and possibly the glidescope receiver since one is built into the 430 saving a little weight overall. Will I be better off leaving the glidescope receiver for com 2 as a backup to the 430?

If you've got it, and it won't cost too much during the 430 installation, why not keep it? Backups are always nice.

Step four which could precede step three. Purchase a usable EFB / Electronic plate viewer. This could be a Kindle DX or a reasonable small tablet with charts and plates available some flight planning software, AOPA directory etc. GPS would be nice but with one or two in the panel not necessary and I would not put weather on it or the 430 since I think one option in the plane will be fine for my purposes.

Personally, I'd go with step 3 first. A Garmin 430 gives you a lot more capability. Also, the EFB/plate viewer market doesn't seem to have shaken itself out quite yet, and really if you're going to do that, you'll probably save a fair amount of $$$ getting a Garmin 696 instead of a 496+EFB.

Traffic alerts probably a ZAON tied to the 430.

Can you tie a ZAON to a 430? I was under the impression that option was for the handhelds. But, maybe you can tie it to the 496/696 instead.